Donegal on slippery slope?

[trileacman]

Seems simple, if McBearty was bitten he should have a mark. It was reported that it needed medical attention at half time so then I'd assume Donegal were smart enough to go along and photograph the evidence if they were going to take this all the way to the CCC.

That said I believe McBearty was bitten, don't know how or why you'd fabricate an allegation and why a medical professional would stake his profession for it.

[J70]

So you're saying O'Brien did bite him and that O'Brien appealed knowing he bit him but took the chance that nobody saw it or caught it on a camera phone?

I haven't said a word about O'Brien.

The question was about the claims that Donegal and McBrearty made it up.

You said if Chelsea claimed Suarez's bit their player, and since O'Brien was accused I presume he had an accuser, that Suarez might have appealed his suspension (like O'Brien) if there were only 2 cameras present and he was confident he wasn't caught by either camera. So Suarez was guilty but he wasn't caught due to lack of cameras and that this is what actually happened with O'Brien.

I didn't say that was what happened with O'Brien. I personally think it the most likely of the possible scenarios, but as there is no proof, my personal opinion is beside the point.

My point is that just because the case could not be proven against O'Brien, it doesn't mean that there was no bite and that McBrearty and Donegal are lying, despite the ludicrous hyperbole from the likes of Indiana. It is perfectly possible that O'Brien or (in a case of mistaken identity) someone else bit McBrearty, but with a completely understandable lack of conclusive evidence (Suarez didn't even leave a mark!), the case couldn't be proven. How do you prove a bite without taking casts and matching them to teethmarks in the flesh or having picture evidence of the incident? The fault here is with the CCCC if they moved solely on what the referee had in his report.

Indiana is proposing that Donegal made up the bite, told lies to two referees at half time and at the end of the game, showed the Dublin medic a fraudulent mark, and took McBrearty to hospital for injections and documentation of a bite that wasn't there. And all for what? Just so they could get some (at this point) obscure Dublin player in trouble? Sorry, but is just ridiculous and all his grandstanding and bravado doesn't make it any less so.

[heffo]

So you're saying O'Brien did bite him and that O'Brien appealed knowing he bit him but took the chance that nobody saw it or caught it on a camera phone?

I haven't said a word about O'Brien.

The question was about the claims that Donegal and McBrearty made it up.

You said if Chelsea claimed Suarez's bit their player, and since O'Brien was accused I presume he had an accuser, that Suarez might have appealed his suspension (like O'Brien) if there were only 2 cameras present and he was confident he wasn't caught by either camera. So Suarez was guilty but he wasn't caught due to lack of cameras and that this is what actually happened with O'Brien.

With a completely understandable lack of conclusive evidence (Suarez didn't even leave a mark!), the case couldn't be proven.

Conclusive evidence? Never mind conclusive evidence, what evidence at all was there?

[J70]

So you're saying O'Brien did bite him and that O'Brien appealed knowing he bit him but took the chance that nobody saw it or caught it on a camera phone?

I haven't said a word about O'Brien.

The question was about the claims that Donegal and McBrearty made it up.

You said if Chelsea claimed Suarez's bit their player, and since O'Brien was accused I presume he had an accuser, that Suarez might have appealed his suspension (like O'Brien) if there were only 2 cameras present and he was confident he wasn't caught by either camera. So Suarez was guilty but he wasn't caught due to lack of cameras and that this is what actually happened with O'Brien.

With a completely understandable lack of conclusive evidence (Suarez didn't even leave a mark!), the case couldn't be proven.

Conclusive evidence? Never mind conclusive evidence, what evidence at all was there?

Well I don't know.

I'd assumed the ref's report and whatever documentary evidence Donegal provided, which in the end couldn't be conclusively linked to O'Brien (as I and others had predicted a couple of weeks ago).

You boys are claiming referee's word alone, so I'm taking your word for it.

If there was NO evidence, please explain the CCCC's original decision?

[Zulu]

I understand what you're saying and I agree, it does sound unlikely that Donegal lied about it all but I do think Donegal have questions to answer here and I'd be as doubtful about your suggestion that O'Brien or any other Dublin player bit McBrearty and are barefacedly chancing their arm in getting away with it. This would mean all involved in Dublin GAA are supporting a player who bit another player on the chance that Donegal hadn't proof he did it, that also seems unlikely.

Bottom line here is one county (at least) have shamed themselves and the CCCC have brought the GAA into disrepute by proposing a ban when it appears no concrete evidence existed to warrant it.

[heffo]

So you're saying O'Brien did bite him and that O'Brien appealed knowing he bit him but took the chance that nobody saw it or caught it on a camera phone?

I haven't said a word about O'Brien.

The question was about the claims that Donegal and McBrearty made it up.

You said if Chelsea claimed Suarez's bit their player, and since O'Brien was accused I presume he had an accuser, that Suarez might have appealed his suspension (like O'Brien) if there were only 2 cameras present and he was confident he wasn't caught by either camera. So Suarez was guilty but he wasn't caught due to lack of cameras and that this is what actually happened with O'Brien.

With a completely understandable lack of conclusive evidence (Suarez didn't even leave a mark!), the case couldn't be proven.

Conclusive evidence? Never mind conclusive evidence, what evidence at all was there?

Well I don't know.

I'd assumed the ref's report and whatever documentary evidence Donegal provided, which in the end couldn't be conclusively linked to O'Brien (as I and others had predicted a couple of weeks ago).

You boys are claiming referee's word alone, so I'm taking your word for it.

If there was NO evidence, please explain the CCCC's original decision?

Evidence =  refs report which equals Donegal Secretary telling him a player was bitten. One doctor saying there was a bite mark, another saying there was a bruise no different to the bruises on a dozen other players playing a contact sport.

Why the CCCC proposed a suspension which they had to know would be overturned is beyond me, I can only suggest media pressure.

[heffo]

I understand what you're saying and I agree, it does sound unlikely that Donegal lied about it all but I do think Donegal have questions to answer here and I'd be as doubtful about your suggestion that O'Brien or any other Dublin player bit McBrearty and are barefacedly chancing their arm in getting away with it. This would mean all involved in Dublin GAA are supporting a player who bit another player on the chance that Donegal hadn't proof he did it, that also seems unlikely.

Bottom line here is one county (at least) have shamed themselves and the CCCC have brought the GAA into disrepute by proposing a ban when it appears no concrete evidence existed to warrant it.

To put this in context, when a member of the Dublin backroom team got involved with a member of the Monaghan team in 2008 and there were no witnesses, the Management committee in the county willingly named the person, accepted the sanction and didn't try to get the person off.

[J70]

I understand what you're saying and I agree, it does sound unlikely that Donegal lied about it all but I do think Donegal have questions to answer here and I'd be as doubtful about your suggestion that O'Brien or any other Dublin player bit McBrearty and are barefacedly chancing their arm in getting away with it. This would mean all involved in Dublin GAA are supporting a player who bit another player on the chance that Donegal hadn't proof he did it, that also seems unlikely.

Bottom line here is one county (at least) have shamed themselves and the CCCC have brought the GAA into disrepute by proposing a ban when it appears no concrete evidence existed to warrant it.

Its not beyond the realms of possibility that the bite happened on the ground and no one else saw it and thus no one is covering for the offender. Its perfectly plausible that the offender and the CCCC and not the respective counties are the ones at fault. I don't really give too much of a bollocks about the bite itself anyway - its not like he caught him with a blind hook and broke his jaw or something. My issue is with the maligning of Donegal just because the verdict came out as it did. It doesn't support that.

[J70]

So you're saying O'Brien did bite him and that O'Brien appealed knowing he bit him but took the chance that nobody saw it or caught it on a camera phone?

I haven't said a word about O'Brien.

The question was about the claims that Donegal and McBrearty made it up.

You said if Chelsea claimed Suarez's bit their player, and since O'Brien was accused I presume he had an accuser, that Suarez might have appealed his suspension (like O'Brien) if there were only 2 cameras present and he was confident he wasn't caught by either camera. So Suarez was guilty but he wasn't caught due to lack of cameras and that this is what actually happened with O'Brien.

With a completely understandable lack of conclusive evidence (Suarez didn't even leave a mark!), the case couldn't be proven.

Conclusive evidence? Never mind conclusive evidence, what evidence at all was there?

Well I don't know.

I'd assumed the ref's report and whatever documentary evidence Donegal provided, which in the end couldn't be conclusively linked to O'Brien (as I and others had predicted a couple of weeks ago).

You boys are claiming referee's word alone, so I'm taking your word for it.

If there was NO evidence, please explain the CCCC's original decision?

Evidence =  refs report which equals Donegal Secretary telling him a player was bitten. One doctor saying there was a bite mark, another saying there was a bruise no different to the bruises on a dozen other players playing a contact sport.

Why the CCCC proposed a suspension which they had to know would be overturned is beyond me, I can only suggest media pressure.

No argument with that.

[Zulu]

I understand what you're saying and I agree, it does sound unlikely that Donegal lied about it all but I do think Donegal have questions to answer here and I'd be as doubtful about your suggestion that O'Brien or any other Dublin player bit McBrearty and are barefacedly chancing their arm in getting away with it. This would mean all involved in Dublin GAA are supporting a player who bit another player on the chance that Donegal hadn't proof he did it, that also seems unlikely.

Bottom line here is one county (at least) have shamed themselves and the CCCC have brought the GAA into disrepute by proposing a ban when it appears no concrete evidence existed to warrant it.

Its not beyond the realms of possibility that the bite happened on the ground and no one else saw it and thus no one is covering for the offender. Its perfectly plausible that the offender and the CCCC and not the respective counties are the ones at fault. I don't really give too much of a bollocks about the bite itself anyway - its not like he caught him with a blind hook and broke his jaw or something. My issue is with the maligning of Donegal just because the verdict came out as it did. It doesn't support that.

Well there is no doubt that the CCCC come out of this badly whatever the truth. They've managed the not inconsiderable of feat of letting down both counties, the GAA and everyone with any interest in this. However, if there was a bite then someone on the Dublin panel either admitted to it and was told to keep quite by Dublin GAA and take his chance or else he lied about what happened and Dublin GAA felt his words was enough to go to bast for. Neither seem likely to me, the first seems very unlikely and I'd be very surprised if a guilty player lied to all in Dublin GAA in this era of camera phones etc., if he was caught out he'd never play for Dublin again whereas if he bit and was found guilty he'd just miss a few games and probably told to cop himself on.

[stephenite]

I don't imagine for one second that someone has made up an allegation that they were bitten by a Dublin player. I cannot accept that.

That the process that followed turned into a shambles is not the fault of either county.

But I'm still pretty sure someone was bitten.

Conjecture.

Utterly zero evidence to support that

Do you believe in the Twilight Zone as a matter of interest? No evidence to support that either.

Hiding behind some basic legal principles will not change my opinion that there was a bite. It is only my opinion, but it's more likely an offence was committed than an allegation being made up in my view. I would say the same regardless of what teams were involved.

[INDIANA]

I don't imagine for one second that someone has made up an allegation that they were bitten by a Dublin player. I cannot accept that.

That the process that followed turned into a shambles is not the fault of either county.

But I'm still pretty sure someone was bitten.

Conjecture.

Utterly zero evidence to support that

Do you believe in the Twilight Zone as a matter of interest? No evidence to support that either.

Hiding behind some basic legal principles will not change my opinion that there was a bite. It is only my opinion, but it's more likely an offence was committed than an allegation being made up in my view. I would say the same regardless of what teams were involved.

No you wouldn't you'd only say that if Dublin were involved and you know it.

[INDIANA]

So you're saying O'Brien did bite him and that O'Brien appealed knowing he bit him but took the chance that nobody saw it or caught it on a camera phone?

I haven't said a word about O'Brien.

The question was about the claims that Donegal and McBrearty made it up.

You said if Chelsea claimed Suarez's bit their player, and since O'Brien was accused I presume he had an accuser, that Suarez might have appealed his suspension (like O'Brien) if there were only 2 cameras present and he was confident he wasn't caught by either camera. So Suarez was guilty but he wasn't caught due to lack of cameras and that this is what actually happened with O'Brien.

With a completely understandable lack of conclusive evidence (Suarez didn't even leave a mark!), the case couldn't be proven.

Conclusive evidence? Never mind conclusive evidence, what evidence at all was there?

Well I don't know.

I'd assumed the ref's report and whatever documentary evidence Donegal provided, which in the end couldn't be conclusively linked to O'Brien (as I and others had predicted a couple of weeks ago).

You boys are claiming referee's word alone, so I'm taking your word for it.

If there was NO evidence, please explain the CCCC's original decision?

Whatever Donegal provided it certainly wasn't evidence.

Because if it was he'd be banned.

[trileacman]

I don't imagine for one second that someone has made up an allegation that they were bitten by a Dublin player. I cannot accept that.

That the process that followed turned into a shambles is not the fault of either county.

But I'm still pretty sure someone was bitten.

Conjecture.

Utterly zero evidence to support that

Do you believe in the Twilight Zone as a matter of interest? No evidence to support that either.

Hiding behind some basic legal principles will not change my opinion that there was a bite. It is only my opinion, but it's more likely an offence was committed than an allegation being made up in my view. I would say the same regardless of what teams were involved.

No you wouldn't you'd only say that if Dublin were involved and you know it.

Jesus get down off your high horse ya p***k.

[J70]

According to the Examiner, the case couldn't be pursued because McBrearty wouldn't testify.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/officials-fume-as-obrien-escapes-three-game-ban-229675.html